Following is a history on Machne Menachem (“The Corp.) and an abbreviated version of the court cases, and proceedings which lead to the current claim.

Machne Menachem was established in 1996 as a not for profit Corp. The Corp. was established to operate as a summer camp for the benefit of Jewish children. In 1997 The Corp. purchased a property in Lackawaxen, PA. The Corp. was run by the Board which consisted of Mendel Hershkop, Shmuel Heber, Yackov Spritzer, and Yosef Goldman.

In 1997 Mr. Spritzer submitted a claim in Federal Court on the basis of RICO charges against the other directors. In October, 2002 the Court decided in favor of the Board of Directors, dismissing charges against them, and giving the opinion that MR. Spritzer had acted against the law.

In December of 2000, while the proceedings in the NY court were still active, Mr. Spritzer filed for bankruptcy for the Corp. in the State of Pennsylvania. Judge Glasser (New York) assessed that Mr. Spritzer filed for bankruptcy to disrupt the proceedings in New York which at that time were not working in his favor. At the time there was no reason (financially) to file for bankruptcy. The camp was well funded via government programs and camp tuition.

To substantiate his claim, Mr. Spritzer claimed that the Corp. owed him $1.3 million which he had loaned to the Corp. He also submitted claims for his partner (Mr. Schriber), his children, and his son-in-law. One month before filing for bankruptcy Mr. Spritzer placed a lean on the camp grounds for his claim (against the law).

After Judge Glasser’s decision, The Board resumed operating the Corp.

The Boards objective at first was to disprove all of the claims submitted against the Corp.

The Board was advised by its counsel to keep the case in Bankruptcy Court so that it could recover the documents which would be used to refute the claims. They were also advised that this would allow them to recover funds they claimed Mr. Spritzer owed the Corp.

After receiving part of the information demanded from Mr. Spritzer, The Corp. accountant confirmed that the claims were unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Mr. Spritzer was advised by the board (around 1998) not to loan money to the Corp. It was further established that relatives of Directors were not allowed to work for pay. This and much more was submitted to Mr. Santura at Hourigan, Kluger, and Quinn. The Board requested of Mr. Santura that he submit a motion regarding these claims, as refutation of those claims would prove the entire bankruptcy proceedings illegitimate.

After several meetings with Mr. Santura at the offices of H.K.Q., The Board was finally promised that such a motion had been submitted. Mr. Santura provided a copy of this motion with his signature (copy available).

This motion included a request for repayment from Mr. Spritzer on the amount owed by him to The Corp.

The Board trusted Mr. Santura’s word that he had submitted this motion. Any time Mr. Santura was asked why he was not more actively pursuing this he would answer that the Judge was busy and had not had time to review it.

During this time Mr. Santura left H.K.Q. and formed a partnership with Mr. Bresser. The partners were retained to finish the case and were paid tens of thousands of dollars both from Corp. and private funds.

The Corp. determined it would submit a separate claim in State court against Mr. Spritzer and paid Mr. Bresser $5000 for that case. Mr. Bresser promised that this had been done, but any demands for paperwork pertaining to that case were ignored. Regardless of his having been paid, and regardless of the critical impact that case would have had on the Machne Menachem case, Mr. Bresser neglected to ever file the case he had promised and been paid for.

In 2004 The Board wanted to rent the grounds to a Yeshiva. They raised this issue with Mr. Santura who drew up a contract to be used for this purpose. He also gave the Board the go ahead to rent it out without Court permission (which they later found out is against the law). As a direct result of this, the Court appointed a trustee which ultimately led to the Boards loss of the property.

At several points in time reference was made to the above mentioned motion and lawsuit on the stand in Court with Mr. Santura present. At no point in time did he ever admit that those motions and the case were never filed.

As a direct result of the lies, deceit, and false promises by Mr.’s Santura and Bresser, the Court accepted Mr. Spritzer’s claim and ultimately appointed a trustee over the Corp. Since then, the trustee has given ownership of the camp property over to Mr. Spritzer for the sum of $1.3 million which was given as security. Those funds were mostly distributed back to Spritzer related claims leaving the Corp. without camp grounds or money.

MR. CONWAY – COURT APPOINTED TRUSTEE

After Mr. Conway’s appointment as trustee in 2006 he neglected his responsibilities as a trustee for Machne Menachem (“The Corp.”). In place of working with the Corp. for the good of the Corp., Mr. Conway worked against the Corp. and refused to meet with the Board of Directors (“The Board”). He also submitted several motions against the Board of Directors which were rejected by the Court.

In spite of the Board ‘s insistence that Mr. Spritzer’s children were not owed any money, and in spite of the objections filed to these payouts, Mr. Conway paid the Spritzer’s children’s claim to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

In spite of Mr. Conway’s knowledge of the Board’s objection to Mr. Schriber’s claim, Mr. Conway paid the claim as submitted to the tune of over $100,000.

Mr. Conway paid claims to creditors despite the Boards objection. Many of those claims had already been paid, and some had failed to provide proof of claim. One of those companies (Ahava) had already failed to prove its claim in court. Nevertheless, Mr. Conway paid that claim.

Despite Mr. Conway’s knowledge of the fact that Mr. Spritzer was not allowed to use the Corp. funds to pay his lawyers, and despite a motion filed by the Corp. to recover the funds already taken by Mr. Spritzer to pay his lawyers, Mr. Conway paid tens of thousands of dollars more to Spritzer lawyers – against the interest of the Corp., from the Corp. money.

In place of acting as a trustee and confident of the Corp., Mr. Conway conspired with Mr. Spritzer, meeting with him and discussing the case on several occasions, while refusing to acknowledge the Board.

As of Today the Board has still not received an accounting of the 1.3 million dollars in the trust. There has been no information provided by Mr. Conway on payouts, only as the Board has learned from Court proceedings. It stands that there is around $500,000 still left, which means that Mr. Conway paid out around $800,000 without the Board’s knowledge or consent.

On May 6, 1997, the plaintiffs, a not-for-profit Corporation and Yaakov Spritzer, filed a complaint against seven named defendants consisting of 167 paragraphs extending over 50 pages and asserting eleven claims as follows:

“To characterize the complaint as prolix, replete with hearsay and irrelevancies, would be charitable”.

History Repeats- Fast Forward 2009:

(Have in mind, the above is not even getting in to the criminal Case, that’s a different story, perhaps for another day).Some Background:
Following the incident at 749 Eastern Parkway where Shomrim members were ambushed and gang assaulted, the Tzfatim went to the police and filed false and trumped up charges against 6 members of Shomrim and had them arrested by the police.

“The conclusion that is compelled by his testimony is that the affairs of the Corporation were conducted by Spritzer as though it was his personal fiefdom with occasional allusions to board approval at meetings which are nowhere documented and by resolutions which were adopted and action taken only because Spritzer divines that they were”.
(Judge Glasser Final Ruling Against Yaakov Spritzer)

Funny how things ended up. Even the Rightful (majority) directors and owners could not work and get paid in their own camp. Except of course for Spritzer and his family.

How this case got to Federal Court when it should have went [straight] to State Court (being a dispute in property ownership), Is all a result of Yaakov Spritzer and Friends (Spritzer, Meir Schreiber and Yossi Spalter) trying to have fellow Jews locked up with a Viscous Mesira. [If Spritzer would have started this case in state court, the issue would have been resolved almost immediately (the verdict, that all are rightful directors), Spritzer knowing this, comes up with a plan of Mesira, to force the camp away from it’s rightful owners, as you see].

For those who excuse themselves (and send your children to “Spritzers” camp) by saying “I don’t get involved in politics”, you are going to discover that this is not simply a case of two sides disputing over a piece of property (which is meant to help you and your children in the summer months), this goes much deeper then that, Mesira to the worse degree.

In time all will be exposed, there will be no excuse of “oh, I did not know”.

Added:(March, 8th, 2009) After reading thorough stacks of material on this case, I have come to a conclusion, that in essence the only thing I would have really needed (to make a case against Spritzer) is this Verdict and PMM. Meaning: if I was to just make a site posting this Verdict, it would be enough . If you really want to get a true picture of what went on, I advice to read this verdict more then onc

The Bais Din’s Latest Psak Regarding Machne Menachem

English Translation

B”H
Wednesday 24 Adar, 5767

To R’ Spritzer and the Brothers R’ Meir and R’ Mendel Hershkop Sheyiehyu.

As there was no conclusion and Psak Din (ruling) with regard to the ownership of Machne Menachem. And there are complaints over the partnership of the above mentioned camp. We are notifying with this letter that until these complaints will be discussed and concluded by a Bais Din that deals with monetary issues on a steady basis in accordance with our holy Torah, there is no permission for anyone to open the camp (even under another name) and use it as his own. We are putting an (ikul) injunction on R’ Yaakov Spritzer not to open the camp and not register any children or hire workers for the camp until the complaints will be adjudicated at a Bais Din.

You are currently browsing the Machane Menachem blog archives for November, 2009.

Warning!

This site is not addressed to the malevolent troublemakers who thrive on dissension and miss no opportunity to stir up controversy. They have no interest in knowing the truth, so no letter, information or facts, can deter them from their goal of provoking strife and sitting back to enjoy the action…

This site and the information on it, is addressed only to those genuinely interested in the truth, justice and who are honestly concerned about respect for the Torah, and are upset by what they feel to be the Chillul Hashem by Spritzer and friends.

Spread the Word

54,834 Know about Machne Menachem

The Talmud in Gittin states:

R. Tarfon used to say: In any place where you find gentile courts, even though their law is the same as the Israelite law, you must not resort to them since it says, 'These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.' (Ex. 21:1) this is to say, 'before them' and not before gentiles.

Pages

Blogroll

Camps

There is a saying in the Talmud:

"A person will not say lies, which can easily be discovered".
But the Lubavitcher Rebbe of blessed memory asked once, that we still see people that lie in any case, and the Rebbe answers;
When we look into the wording of the Talmud it says INSHEI which means a mensch, however someone who is not a mensch can boldly lie to you in the face even on something, which you know now, that it is a lie.

אמת Hayom Yom, 10, Menachem Av

Had the Rebbe not inserted the three words "b'midat emet leYaakov" ("according to the attribute of Truth unto Yaakov"), he would have attracted fifty thousand more Chassidim. But the Rebbe demands the trait of truth.

PIRKEI AVOT: Chapter 5 Mishna 7

There are seven things that characterize a boor, and seven that characterize a wise man. A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom or age. He does not interrupt his fellow's words. He does not hasten to answer. His questions are on the subject and his answers to the point. He responds to first things first and to latter things later. Concerning what he did not hear, he says "I did not hear." He concedes to the truth. With the boor, the reverse of all these is the case.

Meta

Living a Lie

Lying is as impractical as it is immoral.

The human brain is a super computer. It has a vast memory bank that can store vast amounts of information. However, even this memory bank has its limitations. As with any computer, it is possible for its capacity exhausted.

Facts require little retention. A tree was a tree ten years ago, is a tree today, and will be a tree ten years hence. Falsehoods, however, have no existence in reality, and must be retained in memory. A faulty memory will, of course, soon expose the false nature of a statement.

Even if memory is intact, the storage of falsehoods occupies precious space where truth could be stored. Retention of these falsehoods will, therefore, diminish the brain's capacity to store useful information. While we may deceive another person with a lie, we cannot make constructive use of false information.

Truthfulness cannot be maintained during active Lying. Excuses, cover-ups, and frank distortion of fact characterize a lie. To live a lie is not only unethical, but also stupid.